The dropping of the first atomic bomb marked a turning point in the way nations fight one another. The destructive nature of the atomic bomb changed the course of warfare forever. “The effectiveness of nuclear deterrence is best explained by the fact that it was based on fear unlike other peace-keeping strategies of the twentieth century.” This gradual shift to a “fear based” strategy was in response to the failures of previous peace keeping strategies earlier in the century during World War I and II, including the Wilsonian ideals, the treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I, and the concept of appeasement prior to the start of World War II. One strategy that ultimately failed at the end of World War I was president Woodrow Wilson’s …show more content…
fourteen-point peace plan. Wilson’s philosophy was that the wrongs committed in World War I by the German’s should be addressed, but called for a non-punitive peace. Wilson was an idealist and falsely believed his fourteen points would create a fair peace with all countries. Further he believed that this type of compromise would ultimately cause aversion to any future wars “wrongs must be first righted then adequate safeguards must be created… no people must be forced under which it does not wish to live.”(297). He hoped that by treating Germany fairly that they would feel compelled to join with the international community moving forward. In a speech to the other nations he goes on to talk about how Germany should not have that much blame and consequences exacted on them. Wilson ultimately hoped to keep the peace between all countries. “First at each part of the final settlement must be based on the essential justice of that particular case and upon such adjustments as are most likely to bring peace that will be permanent”(298). The first signs that the ideals of Wilson were not going to work in the long run came from the reaction of the other countries it was presented to. Many of Wilson’s points were unrealistic, and not well received by Brittan and France. It didn’t make sense to these nations that an American president should dictate what goes on in European countries. Britain and France did the majority of the fighting in World War I against Germany. For these nations, they felt and experienced extreme loss of both people and resources from fighting the Germans. France and Britain wanted Germany to pay for what they had caused. However Wilson thought this would be a mistake, “…to propose anything but justice, even-handed and dispassionate justice, to Germany at any time”(298). Wilson had the forethought that punishing Germany harshly would make more problems in the future with them. France and Britain disagreed with Wilson and his ideals and blamed Germany for all the loss and destruction of World War I. Instead of embracing Wilson’s ideals of a fair peace the “Treaty of Versailles” punished Germany harshly. In the so-called “War Guilt Clause” Germany was forced to admit all faults and blame in total for World War I. They were also forced to pay back large fines for the damage they had caused in the war, this caused a good amount of issues internally in Germany as it caused it’s citizens to suffer to some degree. Because Germany was singled out after their defeat in World War I they became motivated to rise up again and conquer the countries that they felt had humiliated them. “The foundations were aggression of great powers upon the small…the holding together of empires of unwilling subjects by the duress of arms.”(299). Wilson’s fourteen points were ultimately good and had great intentions but Wilson did not take into account how other countries around the world would take his ideas. History might have been different if France and Britain had been able to be less punitive with Germany and embrace a more peaceful strategy at the end of World War I instead of the “Treaty of Versailles” that they agreed upon. Because Germany felt humiliated after their defeat at the end of World War I and the conditions they were forced to agree to with the “Treaty of Versailles” they were as a country motivated to find a way to rise up again against those countries they felt had wronged them.
This enabled Hitler to rise to power in this country in the years after World War I and leading up to World War II. France and Britain still had the memory of World War I when Hitler started to rise to power and take over new lands. Because they did not want to enter another conflict with Germany France and Britain hoped that taking an approach of “appeasement” with Germany would prevent another World War. It was this philosophy of appeasement, which led them to sign the “Munich Agreement” in which France and Britain agreed to allow Germany to take over portions of Czechoslovakia. Those who Neville Chamberlin argued in defense of appeasement, “….if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted”(379). He clearly felt that the threat of Nazi Germany was not as serious as it would ultimately become. “As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented”(379). France and Britain hoped desperately that by appeasing Germany they could prevent a total war. However, by giving Germany land and power France and Britain strengthened Germany and weakened themselves for when they would eventually have to fight
them. These failed strategies eventually led to World War II. Once Germany surrendered to the Allied powers in the spring of 1945 after much devastating destruction, The United States turned its attention to ending its conflict with Japan. It was clear that Japan would fight for a long time and would not give up. The United States had to turn to a more destructive type of warfare and decided to shift to a “fear based” strategy and dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombs killed citizens and moved the war from the battlefields to the cities where people lived and induced fear among those who were targeted. This new weapon had the desired result and the nation of Japan surrendered to the United States fearing more devastating loss of people and resources due to the bombs. The fear of atomic and nuclear weapons is still a deterrent for nations today. No one wants to see what will happen if a another world war were to happen because with modern technology countries have today carry the ability to totally destroy one another in totality. The level of destruction that countries could inflict upon one another is at a level where they would possibly never recover and leave lasting effects on the earth that could affect resources that countries need to survive. Since the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 no nation has used a type of weapon, like the atomic bomb that carries such magnitude on another nation since. It is interesting to realize how vulnerable nations are to one another. It would not take much effort with the technology that exists now to totally destroy each other and ourselves.
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
The war was coming to a victorious conclusion for the Allies. Germany had fallen, and it was only a matter of time until Japan would fall as well. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was at the forefront of the American war effort, and saw atomic weaponry as a way out of the most monumental war ever. As discussed in Cabell Phillips’ book, The Truman Presidency: The History of a Triumphant Succession, Stimson was once quoted as saying that the atomic bomb has “more effect on human affairs than the theory of Copernicus and the Law of Gravity” (55). Stimson, a defendant of dropping the bomb on Japan, felt that the world would never be the same. If the world would change after using atomic weapons, could it possibly have changed for the better? One would think not. However, that person might be weary of the biased opinion of White House personnel. He or she should care more for the in depth analytical studies done by experts who know best as to why America should or should not have dropped the atomic bomb. As more and more evidence has been presented to researchers, expert opinion on whether or not the United States should have dropped the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has also changed. More and more researchers seem to feel that the atomic bomb should never have been used (Alperovitz 16). Despite several officials’ claims to enormous death estimations, an invasion of Japan would have cost fewer total lives. In addition, post atomic bomb repercussions that occurred, such as the Arms Race, were far too great a price to pay for the two atomic drops. However, possibly the most compelling argument is that Japan would have surrendered with or without the United States using the atomic bomb. In defiance of top...
Upon reading “Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan” by J. Samuel Walker, a reader will have a clear understanding of both sides of the controversy surrounding Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The controversy remains of whether or not atomic bombs should have been used during the war. After studying this text, it is clear that the first atomic bomb, which was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, was a necessary military tactic on ending the war. The second bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki, however, was an unnecessary measure in ensuring a surrender from the Japanese, and was only used to seek revenge.
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage on two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along
The creation of the hydrogen bomb, moreover the summoning of an arms race, spawned worldwide desire for nuclear arms, and worldwide fear for those who had them; The effects of such can be seen in the economic and diplomatic benefits exhibited by those with enough stamina and vigilance to endure its costs, and in the extreme measures taken by countries, nominally the United States, to respond to the security threat posed when other countries owned the bomb. Furthermore: For those whose economy could afford it, nominally the U.S., USSR and India, economic and diplomatic benefits followed its creation; For the U.S., following the creation of the bomb by enemies were extreme defense tactics; For all the benefits and costs compelled a worldwide
One of the most argued topics today, the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs still rings in the American ear. Recent studies by historians have argued that point that the United States really did not make the right choice when they chose to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Also with the release of once classified documents, we can see that the United States ...
Development of the Hydrogen Bomb In the world, there is little thing called power. Many countries want to have great power, few get it. Powers gave the Soviet Union and the U.S. the ability to dominate in wars. In the 1950’s during the Cold War these two countries had a race to see who could create the most powerful weapon the world has ever seen, the Hydrogen Bomb. Edward Teller, an atomic physicist, and Stanislaw Marcin Ulam, a mathematician, "who together developed the Teller-Ulam design in 1951" for the Hydrogen Bomb (Teller-Ulam Design).
When War broke out in Europe in 1914 Wilson determined it was in the best interest of the United States to stay out of the conflict. In spite of the fact that president Wilson hoped to stay out of the war and wanted peace, in mid 1917 German submarines started attacking U.S. dealerships. On April 2, 1917, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany, stating,“The world must be made safe for democracy.(History.com Staff)” In the following year and a half the United States constructed a army of 4 million men by enrollment, and sent 2 million men abroad to France, and joined the whole populace behind the war effort. After the war Wilson went before Congress in January 1918, to enunciate American war aims - the Fourteen Points, the last of which would establish "A general association of nations... affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.(Duffy)”Woodrow Wilson did a good job in when joining the war finishing it in a rather fast manner and then quickly making sure a conflict like this never happened
Truman’s decision to use atomic weapons has long been a controversial subject throughout the decades after he used it. Many scholars and people who surrounded the president at the time published memoirs and books about the decision to use the weapon. As years went, more works of writing and information were released which added more information to the vast knowledge we have of the decision to drop the bomb and of what the Japanese faced after the event took place. J. Samuel Walker wrote a book called Prompt & utter destruction which uses new knowledge gained about the bomb and new information the Japanese released, which Walker said, “has greatly enriched our understanding of the agonizing deliberations in Tokyo over ending the war” (ix).Walker did not take any sides in the book, however, he uses what material from the first book and new sources of information to evaluate why President Truman made his decision. The main focus of Walker’s book is to answer why President Truman used atomic bombs against Japan and open more discussion to the question “was the bomb militarily necessary or was it used primarily for political/diplomatic reasons that had more to do with impressing the Soviets than winning the war against Japan?” (xii), which Walker said the question “divided specialists” (xii).
Other countries mainly Britain responded to Hitler’s actions with appeasement and by not stopping him early on with collective security it directly caused World War Two. Collective Security is when multiple countries work together to strengthen a country in need. Based off of document 6 Winston Churchill suggested that Britain, France, and other nations should come together and protect Czechoslovakia from Hitler to stop the growth of Nazi power. Collective Security could have prevented Czechoslovakia from coming into German control. While in accordance with document 9 nobody could openly oppose Hitler’s massive forces he had accumulated. Which is why they didn’t use collective security to protect Czechoslovakia. Instead they used The Munich Agreement to appease to Hitler. The Munich Agreement handed over Czechoslovakia in hopes it would diminish Hitler’s need to keep taking over surrounding countries. Stated in document 7 The Munich Agreement was unnecessary because Czech defenses were relatively strong and during this time Germany wasn’t at its zenith of strength. Also Hitler’s generals were going to try to overthrow Hitler if he attacked Czechoslovakia because the Generals believed it was a foolish endeavour that would mean the downfall of
When President Truman authorized the use of two nuclear weapons in 1945 against the Japanese in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, the nature of international security was changed irreversibly. At that time, the United States had what was said to have a monopoly of atomic bombs. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union began working on atomic weaponry. In 1949, it had already detonated it first atomic bomb and tensions began to heat up between the two countries. With the information that the Soviets had tested their first bomb, the United States began work on more powerful weapons1, and a fight for nuclear superiority had begun.
Meanwhile, Fuhrer Hitler and the Nazi party were continuing their domination of Europe and threatening to invade Czechoslovakia, which many felt would most likely incite another World War. To prevent this, England, France, Italy and Germany entered into an agreement, which would allow Germany to seize control of Sudetenland and is today known as the ‘Munich Pact’. Sudetenland had a large German population and its borders were in strategically strong areas for the German military. For negotiations to be successful there are many components that one must be aware of such as personalities of all parties, end goals of each person and the history of the country. England led the process with an appeasement policy as an attempt to mollify Hitler and the Nazi party and prevent war, which this pact did not.
The Big Bang The opportunity to end World War II was right in front of President Truman, but could he unleash the horrible weapon against Japan? Would he be able to use the weapon that was likely to be the most destructive weapon ever used? President Truman’s goal was to end the war as swiftly as possible, and with the atomic bomb, he would be able to accomplish this goal. President Truman believed the atomic bomb would save both American and Japanese lives.
During the late 1930s and early 1940s European countries along with parts of Asia were undergoing World War II. The U.S. had become involved in 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. To help the U.S. they joined Britain, France and the Soviet Union (Allied Powers) to fight against Germany, Italy and Japan (Axis Powers). In the spring of 1945 the Allied Powers had concord and defeated Germany. The next task was to defeat Japan (pacific ocean war). The war in the pacific was filled with death that the U.S.was not prepared for. These battles foreshadowed the invasion of the Japanese mainland. The results would be a tremendous loss for the U.S. The U.S. had to come up with a plan, the atomic bomb.There are many controversies in whether the U.S. should have dropped the bomb. The U.S. did end
On August 6th and 9th, 1945 the US dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 150-200, 000 people instantly. Three days later, the Americans dropped another Atomic bomb on Nagasaki. The Japanese would not have surrendered without the use of the atomic bomb. This saved a great deal of Japanese and American lives. It also ended the war very quickly. The use of the atomic bomb also demonstrated the power of the US to the world.